Wakilii

Fred Muwema v Uganda Revenue Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Application No 549 of 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 242 · 2018 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from civil suit challenging travel ban
Decision
Temporary injunction granted pending determination of the main suit

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Held that a temporary injunction should issue restraining implementation of the travel ban. The main suit raises serious questions requiring determination at trial, satisfying the prima facie case requirement. Continued infringement of the applicant's constitutional right to practice his profession under Article 40(2) would cause irreparable damage not adequately compensable by damages. The respondent failed to show reasonable grounds that the applicant intended to permanently leave Uganda as required under section 105 of the Income Tax Act. Balance of convenience favoured the applicant whose trade was restrained by the ban.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted pending determination of the main suit

Facts

The Uganda Revenue Authority issued a travel ban against Fred Muwema alleging he owed UGX 4,314,906,176 as outstanding tax liability. The travel ban was implemented by the Attorney General. Muwema filed HCCS No. 377 of 2018 challenging the travel ban as unlawful, unjustified and an infringement of his constitutional rights under Articles 29(2) and 40(2). He then brought this application for a temporary injunction to restrain implementation of the travel ban pending determination of the main suit. The applicant contended the ban prevented him from practicing his profession and caused business loss. The respondents argued the application was res judicata and that a Supreme Court judgment had found the applicant liable for the sum. The respondent contended the travel ban was lawfully imposed under section 105 of the Income Tax Act to compel payment before travel.

Issues

  1. Whether a temporary injunctive order should issue to restrain the respondents from implementing a travel ban on the applicant pending determination of the main suit.
  2. Whether the application is res judicata.
  3. Whether the applicant demonstrated a prima facie case with probability of success.
  4. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted.
  5. Whether the balance of convenience favours the applicant.

Orders

  • Temporary injunction issued restraining respondents, their officials, servants and/or agents from implementing the travel ban against the applicant until determination of HCCS No. 377 of 2018.
  • Costs to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Principles for Grant
A temporary injunction is an exercise of judicial discretion granted to preserve matters in status quo until final disposal. The applicant must show: (1) a prima facie case with probability of success; (2) that irreparable injury would otherwise be suffered which would not be adequately compensated by damages; and (3) if the court is in doubt, the balance of convenience must favour the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case Test
To determine whether a prima facie case exists, the court inquires whether there is a serious issue to be tried at trial. The court should not attempt to resolve issues related to the main suit at the interlocutory stage.
Constitutional Law — Fundamental Rights — Right to Practice Profession
Loss suffered as a result of infringement of a constitutional right cannot be properly atoned for through compensatory damages. Continued infringement of the right to practice one's profession under Article 40(2) of the Constitution constitutes irreparable injury for purposes of granting a temporary injunction.
Tax Law — Travel Bans — Statutory Requirements for Issuance
Under section 105 of the Income Tax Act, the Commissioner may issue a travel ban only where the Commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that a person may leave Uganda permanently without paying all tax due. The Commissioner must demonstrate such reasonable grounds exist; a general assertion that tax is due is insufficient.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience
Balance of convenience means that if the risk of doing an injustice is going to make the applicant suffer, then the balance is favourable to the applicant and the court would be inclined to grant the temporary injunction. Where a travel ban restrains the applicant's trade and is likely to cause continuing loss, the balance of convenience favours the applicant.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Abdu Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Daniel Mukwaya v Administrator General (High Court Civil Suit No. 630 of 1993)
  • Tim Kabaza and 2 Others v Chatha Investments Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 745 of 2007)
  • Prof. Peter Anyang Nyong'O and Others v Attorney General of Kenya and Others (East African Court of Justice Case Ref. No. 1 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Fred Muwema v Uganda Revenue Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Application No 549 of 2018) [2018] UGHCCD 242 (22 November 2018)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.